Luddite Fallacy
Technological unemployment is the loss of jobs due to labor-saving devices and more efficient processes. Machines causing job loss has been around for centuries as a disputed topic. Most of those who are uninformed tend to have a pessimistic view its effect on the job market and economy. In reality, machines should be filling jobs because of how the luddite fallacy is a common, flawed belief, the job-market’s ability to adapt, and its stimulating effect on the economy.
Some work to live, while others live to work. Throughout the course of history, it is seen that humans have developed tools to aid them in working less. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, textile-workers feared their jobs would be replaced by textile machines. There …show more content…
Later, the appearance of these individuals led to another term known as the “luddite fallacy,” where it is believed that jobs are being taken by machines in place of humans. The luddite fallacy is a long-term. Alex Tabbarok said that “If the Luddite fallacy were true we would all be out of work because productivity has been increasing for two centuries” (“Productivity and Unemployment”) According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, those born in the baby boom generation held an average of 11.7 total jobs between the ages of 18 and 48, while half of those jobs were held between the ages of 18 and 24. It is obvious that the average jobs held by workers is substantially less than the seventies. It can be argued that the decrease in jobs is because machines are replacing workers and most jobs are becoming obsolete.
Another reason why machines should be filling jobs is the economic benefit it has. The lower cost of machine labor causes a series of events that include lowering competitive prices, increase supply, and in theory, leads to stimulation of the economy. If machines were to replace the common working man, that would average to be 50,000 more dollars to be spread to other workers or fund charitable organizations. Although it appears that job opportunities are declining due to the appearance of new machinery, these machines are only changing the makeup of the job
Some work to live, while others live to work. Throughout the course of history, it is seen that humans have developed tools to aid them in working less. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, textile-workers feared their jobs would be replaced by textile machines. There …show more content…
Later, the appearance of these individuals led to another term known as the “luddite fallacy,” where it is believed that jobs are being taken by machines in place of humans. The luddite fallacy is a long-term. Alex Tabbarok said that “If the Luddite fallacy were true we would all be out of work because productivity has been increasing for two centuries” (“Productivity and Unemployment”) According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, those born in the baby boom generation held an average of 11.7 total jobs between the ages of 18 and 48, while half of those jobs were held between the ages of 18 and 24. It is obvious that the average jobs held by workers is substantially less than the seventies. It can be argued that the decrease in jobs is because machines are replacing workers and most jobs are becoming obsolete.
Another reason why machines should be filling jobs is the economic benefit it has. The lower cost of machine labor causes a series of events that include lowering competitive prices, increase supply, and in theory, leads to stimulation of the economy. If machines were to replace the common working man, that would average to be 50,000 more dollars to be spread to other workers or fund charitable organizations. Although it appears that job opportunities are declining due to the appearance of new machinery, these machines are only changing the makeup of the job